全 15 件のコメント

[–]BeardedDenim 16ポイント17ポイント  (7子コメント)

If there was no religion, the evolutionary advantage of having a lifetime mate would still be a major influence in society. By limiting your options to your potential best mate (to the best of your ability to choose) and keep them with you indefinitely, you limit diseases and help guarantee your offspring a better upraising (for the most part, not in all cases obviously).

[–]Corapsara 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think this is a great answer, completely stripped of 'morality'. Except in a very few situations, it serves humanity to stick to one mate and acquire resources for that mate and his/her children. It does seem to have worked in the past, if nothing else.

[–]zDougie 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perfect! I was going to point out the emotional pain felt when another is chosen over you, but you said it better!

[–]Crysalim 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes.

Monogamous traits have been observed in many animal species, predominantly aviary. Even though few mammals have monogamous tendencies, it is within reason to state that since such an adaptation evolved before humans, religion was a non factor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals

[–]davidl085 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Great question and something I have thought about alot.

There are 2 factors to look at here,our cultural and evolutionary history.

Religion falls into our cultural history so I will start with the evolution of our species and how we might of developed a monotonous species.

If you look at the other great apes, we are the only species that (attempts to) practice monogamy. This is interesting and there are a couple of reason why we are different.

If we take gorillas for example, 1 big male can protect a large number of females, he just has to keep winning the fights against his rivals. It is survival of the fittest and the biggest strongest male gets to reproduce.

So why are we different?

At some point in our history, it became too difficult to protect a large number of females. Sure, you are big and strong but I have a rock and you need to sleep sometime.

With the development of our brains, along with our increasing ability to communicate with each other, the alpha male who gets to keep all the woman became impossible.

It became much safer to have 1 female who you could protect and it became advantageous and eventually became culture.

Extra reading. I believe that the problems we are having today with cheating and divorce is because we are currently trapped in this transistion phase from our culture back to our evolutionary needs. Our culture says that we should get married and have only one sequel partner, but a man's genetics scream at him to be an alpha make and fuck lots of woman, while a woman's genetics attract them to men with power.

[–]Corapsara -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is a great question, one that, as a reformed Christian (now atheist) I ask myself regularly. Because of the widespread incidence of monogamy (and religion), I say yes, it serves some purpose. Or at least it did at one time. Perhaps it doesn't anymore. But honesty in your dealings always serves a purpose, so if you aren't monogamous, own it!

[–]BitOBear 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Christianity is based on Polygamy. It was revised to monogamy in the Victorian age translations of the bible, so monogamy is an after-market modification. Look up "biblical marriage" but scroll past the US fundimentalist version to what the actual source materials say.

Meanwhile, the functions of marriage were never dictated by religion, they are historically adopted into religious law as customs change.

The real purpose of marriage was never even about reproduction. Think of what you get "in-law". You get extra parents and siblings in-law, but you don't get extra children. Those you have to adopt separately.

Marrage is the cross-stitch to society. It assures that if you break your spine and need to have someone wipe your ass for the rest of your life someone is already in line to get stuck with that duty.

For better, for worse; for richer, or poorer; in sickness and in health; for as long as we both shall live.

Think about that. Really dwell. This is not about children or religion. This is about making sure that your ass doesn't become a public burden. That's what marriage is for. It's what it's always been for. The Code of Adam requires you to marry your brother's widow. This is to maintain the burdens of family despite all.

So no, neither religion nor evolution brought us monogamy.

[–]atomfullereneAnimal Behavior/Marine Biology 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now what? Judaism clearly had some polygamy, which is quite visible in any biblical translation. Christianity originated in a somewhat polygamous society but the only relevant verses there are about how church officials should have only one wife. A cursory look at the historical record will show that Christianity clearly did not approve of polygamy for centuries before the Victorian era--I mean just look at all the trouble Henry 8 went through to get a divorce. He didn't have the option of simply picking up another wife on the side.

And what are these Victorian age bible translations anyway? The King James version predates the Victorian age by more than 200 years. NIV was published in the 1970's, the New Living Translation in 1996, and The New King James in the 80's and the New American Standard in the 60's (just to pull the top 5 from a list of most-sold Bibles). Nobody's even using Victorian age Biblical translations.

[–]BitOBear 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Religion does not, and never has, particularly favored monogamy.

Inedeed, if you read your bible the idea of monogamy isn't really in there much at all except by inference in the late victorian translations.

Most religions favor Polygamy rather intensely.

The move from Polygamy is strongly correlated to the slow cessation of decimation of the male population by war. Every decade we've reduced the liklihood, worldwide, that a men are going to disproportantly die in tribal warfare or civil violence.

So previously needed Polygamy to "care for our women" at the tribal/blood-line level. So every established religion actually has that as totemicly correct marriage.

Modern faiths (Moonies, Bahai, etc) use Monogamy since the disparity is gone by their founding.

But even with no religion, there is still tradition. And tradition required polygamy before and monogamy now.